Guns and Pot: Which States Are Friendly to Both?

The guns 'n' dope Venn diagram

A Reddit user recently posted a graphic called "The Venn Diagram of Cultural Politics," showing which states allow at least some citizens to use marijuana, which states recognize gay marriages, and which do both. The chart got us wondering: Which places embrace the personal freedoms beloved by the left and the right? Where can you buy both a vibrator and a Big Gulp? Where can a gay couple not just marry but avoid a high sin tax on the cigarettes they smoke after sex? Where can you carry a gun while passing a joint?

The image below tackles that last question. If you include states that have legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes only, there are now 24 states that permit pot. There are 42 states where an adult non-felon's right to carry a concealed gun is either unrestricted or subject only to permissive "shall issue" laws. Sixteen states fall into both categories.

If you narrow the question, though—limiting yourself to places that allow marijuana even without a prescription and concealed carry even without a permit—the intersection shrinks to contain just one state. The Guns and Dope Party has found its regional base.

Jason Keisling

This chart was updated to note New York and Minnesota's restrictions on smokeable pot.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Wyoming is colder than Colorado and not quite as exotic as Montana. So it has managed I think to limit the rich Prog retard invasion to Jackson Hole and not much else. Really, if you can stand the climate and can figure out a way to make a living there, Wyoming is one of the few “leave me the fuck alone” states left.

In the right circles, absolutely. I say this with experience. When I first moved to Washington DC, I played the “I was from the plains and once did manly shit like work on farms and hunt and shit” to the hilt. And it worked. The idea was to be smart and reasonable but not the same as the other city dweller guys. It works. You just have to go to a big coastal city.

Interesting! I garnered a lot of attention from considerably older men in the brief amount of time I lived in Tennessee, but I guess I appeal to a different demographic back here with other native Montanans.

It’s good to know, but I only really plan on living in Montana from here on out. Reppin’ 406, y’all.

I would volunteer eastern Washington and eastern Oregon IF we could secede from the western halves of both states which are controlled by commie Bolshevik, Marxist, Trotskyite, bed-wetter, pinko, sissies and girly-men.

Plus other costs to do business are higher in MA (like real estate and regulatory costs). If I can find my beer in NH, I buy it in NH because it almost always is cheaper in NH. If I can’t find it in NH, I bite the bullet and head down to MA.

According to the owner of the brew shop I usually frequent, he’s only allowed to sell beers that are on a NH Liquor Commission approved list. MA on the other hand is much more relaxed about what beers a retailer can sell.

Limbaugh is of course a public figure. That means he has to prove reckless disregard for the truth to win. That is generally hard to do. It is not however impossible. I am pretty sure that taking quotes out of context and claiming that they mean the exact opposite of what their context show them to mean would meet the test. So for example, if Limbaugh says “Even if a person is guilty of rape, they should go free if the government can’t prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt” and the Dem Committee just quoted “Even if a person is guilty of rape, they should go free” as evidence Limbaugh supports rape, that would be slander even of a public person. You would think the Democrats would have gotten good legal advice and made sure they skirted the line without going over into slander. But they have been so obsessed with Limbaugh for so long, it is entirely possible they figured they could say anything and went over the line.

I hope he sues. It will make for some entertaining litigation if nothing else.

You would think the Democrats would have gotten good legal advice and made sure they skirted the line without going over into slander.

I’m sure they presumed a friendly court would be hearing the case, and besides, what do they care about a few million of their donors’ dollars going to a settlement or judgement? Getting the lie out there is all that matters. Nobody reads the retraction on page 156.

The plaintiff gets to choose the venue. Limbaugh is a Florida resident. And this would be against the national committee, which is likely incorporated in DC. So it could be heard in federal court in Florida under diversity jurisdiction or state court in Florida since Limbaugh is a Florida resident and the DNC most certainly has enough contacts with Florida for a court there to have personal jurisdiction over them.

So as defendants, the Dems won’t be able to pick a friendly jurisdiction or judge. Limbaugh as plaintiff will be able to do that.

And yes they could just go get the money from some Prog billionaire. It will however be delicious to watch them have to give the evil Limbaugh money. Don’t think that won’t hurt a lot even if they don’t really have to take the payment out of hide.

Also, I wonder if he might have a tortious interference of contract case against Media Matters for trying to bully his advertisers into dropping the show. Yes, they have a first amendment right to object to Limbaugh and tell his advertisers. But if they took statements out of context and lied to his advertizes about what he actually said, that would be tortious.

I don’t think having an MMC is a statutory prohibition for also getting a CCL (I could be wrong, didn’t pay much attention to that since I’m not getting an MMC), but due to the fact we have the ‘law enforcement objection’ for concealed carry, if LEOs can search for persons with an MMC you can be sure that having one will be an automatic objection for CCL applicants.

Now an objection is not an automatic rejection of your CCL app, but it may as well be for someone with an MMC.

I’m still baffled as to why the media and major parties consider concealed carry to be a benefit for cishet white males and not for women, racial minorities, sexual/gender minorities, etc. It’s obvious that better self-defense disproportionately benefits those most at danger of rape, murder, and battery, especially when teh privlejes are against them in police response and in trials.

The girl in the pic is quite sexy. I think the reason why the media doesn’t understand that women and small and often disliked minority groups like gays benefit most from gun ownership is they are just so ignorant about guns they have what amounts to an animist view of them. The typical lefty journalist views guns as just taboo objects that cause harm by their mere presence.

It is absolutely an example of ignorance and primitive thinking. They also just instinctively reject any sort of self help since they view the government as the solution to any problem. When someone like you or I look at the problem of gay bashing, our solution is to make it a contact sport by having more gays carry guns and be able to defend themselves. The typical leftist journalist looks at it as a problem the government isn’t trying hard enough to solve.

Is this chart accurate? Is it considering both issues separately or together, as in running a (med)-MJ shop or uinsg MJ while carrying?

Arizona is listed as an intersection, but wasn’t Sandusky guy initially threatened with up to 90 years prison time for running a MJ shop while having guns on premises? If I recall he relented and plead for 10 years.

While socially conservative, they always struck me as the rational as opposed to the irrational types. They aren’t as “leave us alone” as some of the other western states, but more so than Rhode Island and Michigan.

Ya got me there and you found us out. I concede. There is no arguing with that sound logic, OTRTM. So I’m on my way out, right now, to register for one of the Teams. Not sure which, but I guess it doesn’t matter.

Too bad you can’t defend your libertarian position with more than this “literary fart”. This is typical of you people. You are no different than those of other ideologies who can’t defend what you really believe. Good luck.

I get so fucking sick of people who think that the war on drugs is a stupid distraction pushed by people who just want to get stoned. It is a huge issue for anyone who gives a shit about liberty or rule of law because it has perverted the whole purpose of the criminal justice system.

What does being left alone by the government unless you infringe on another persons rights to life liberty or property have to do with liberty? This is an insanely stupid question even by troll standards.

No, that was OTRTM, making a big scene like the loser attention whore they are, declaring vigorously that they were leaving this site forever.

It’s a testament to the utterly pathetic nature of their existence that they continue to return here only to lob juvenile insults that, for some strange reason, seem to almost always involve their ass and doing things to it.

In a newly surfaced video, one of Obamacare’s architects admits a “lack of transparency” helped the Obama administration and congressional Democrats pass the Affordable Care Act. The conservative group American Commitment posted Jonathan Gruber’s remarks, reportedly from an Oct. 17, 2013, event, on YouTube.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” says the MIT economist who helped write Obamacare. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

Because government knows what’s best for you. What a fucking piece of shit. The mask is gone, FYTW!

That is exactly analogous to Dick Cheney admitting on tape that of course the Bush Administration didn’t think Iraq had WMDs but lied to the public because they wanted to invade Iraq as part of their bigger plans for the middle east.

Of course unlike such an admission by Cheney, this admission will either be ignored or treated as “old news” by the media. The only upshot of this is that it shows that lying to the public is not without its downsides. Yeah, they go their bill. But since they got it based on lies, it has never met expectations and will forever be unpopular and a political albatross for the Democrats. That of course doesn’t bother that asshole. But it does serve as a warning to future politicians the next time some asshole tells them they need to lie and just pass their bright idea for the country.

They did. But it was too late. Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown trying to stop it. The country punished the Democrats severely in the 2010 mid terms for doing it. But it was too late. What were the voters supposed to do once those assholes were in office?

And remember, Obama never campaigned on doing healthcare reform. They sprung that on the country after he was elected.

One city attorney called his legal documents a “masterpiece of deception” and has won 96 percent of his forfeiture cases.

This will not happen, but the Institute for Justice needs to turn this asshole into his bar. He just admitted to lying to the court. That is the kind of thing that normally gets your license suspended. That is of course unless you are lying for the government and then its okay.

Too bad we don’t have an actual major media that is interested in doing anything but cover for Obama’s sorry ass. Those clips would make for some real must see TV investigative journalism.

When I lived in Chicago, the closest gun range was Illinois Gun Works in Elmwood Park. About a year after I started going there, it was hit with a bunch of EPA fines for lead pollution and forced to close. I was forced to go to another gun range way outside the city in Lombard called Article II. I presume they meant 2nd Amendment. They had this stupid plaque inside:

And the moment the courts made Chicago lift its gun ban the murder rate went through the floor. There is literally not a single bit of evidence that shows increased gun ownership leads to anything but safer communities.

The evidence for that is so persuasive and undeniable that any person who pushes for a gun ban should be assumed to want innocent people to be victimized by criminals. If you support gun control, you want poor people to die at the hands of criminals. It is just that simple.

I thought about getting a Chicago Firearm Permit. When I read all the ridiculous rules, I gave up. The permit costs $500, requires a 10-hour class, fingerprinting, and informing the police of the gun’s status every year. Oh, and the office that accepted the applications only 2 days a week from 10 AM to 2 PM.

It was like that part in the Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy where Arthur says that he found the demolition notice for his house in the bottom drawer of a locked filing cabinet which hand been shoved into a disused lavatory with a sign on the door which read “beware of the leopard”.

If you support gun control, you want poor people to die at the hands of criminals. It is just that simple.

No, no, no, no, NO!

If you support gun control then you want to get guns out of the hands of criminals! Don’t you know anything? How are criminals going to be disarmed without gun control? If you don’t support gun control, then you support arming criminals! Why do you want criminals to be armed? Huh? Why?

Until Marijuana is legal on the Federal level, gun ownership and pot use will continue to be problematic. On the Form 7743, which is required for all gun sales, question 10e asks if you are a user or addicted to illegal drugs. Since Marijuana is illegal on the Federal level, this would disqualify any pot user from purchasing a firearm regardless of it’s legality on the state level.

IF the GOP were smart, which of course they are not, they would pass a law taking Marijuana off of schedule 3 and watch Obama squirm and almost certainly veto it. It would do a tremendous amount to show the country just exactly which party is the party of social control.

How will cannabis ever be legal on the federal level? Can a referendum be called on a national level? Because if not, I don’t see cannabis ever being legal on the federal level. It would take congress repealing the law, right? Let’s see, we have 4 libertarians out of about 535 members of congress, let’s do the math here…

There are a good number of reps who would vote to end federal prohibition of cannabis. Not nearly enough yet, but I don’t think it has to be a libertarian thing. Once enough states legalize, I bet Congress will catch up.

I’m betting that more than half the states will legalize and there still will not be enough votes in congress. Also, the POTUS has to sign it. I’d almost be willing to wager that all of the states will legalize before it’s legal on the federal level.

Actually, it would take the President having the FDA take marijuana off of schedule 3. The law doesn’t ban anything in particular. It gives the FDA to ban and regulate drugs it deems dangerous.

Every time you hear Obama talking about how he supports legalized marijuana but also wants to affirm the primacy of federal law, remember he has the power to make marijuana legal under federal law. He just chooses not to do so.

People are always taking about how there will some day be mass civil unrest in America when and if the fed based economy finally goes tits up. They base this prediction on what usually happens in Europe when the economy really goes down.

I don’t think those predictions are right. The US has suffered multiple full on economic collapses in its history. Unemployment was nearly 30% in the early thirties. The depressions of 1836 and 1873 were even more severe than the one in the 30s. And yet, there was never any real break down in order.

I think the reason for that is widespread gun ownership. What is civil unrest? It is the mob getting together and going and burning down and stealing other people’s shit. That is all it is. The problem is that the US is too well armed for such things to ever occur in this country outside of a few urban areas where the government has through gun control disarmed the public. Outside of those few places, gun ownership is damn near universal in this country. So going out and trying to steal and burn down other people’s shit is generally a ticket to getting a bullet in your head. And thus won’t happen no matter how bad the economy gets.

But it lacks stopping power. If the threat is very close, and self defense usually is, a .22 might not stop the threat before it can hurt you. If a threat dies after he has been shot but still stabs you it might not save your life.

Define affordable. Also, we can make recommendations, but you’re really going to have to try them out at your local range to see if their recoil etc… bugs you. Most ranges will have various models of pistols available for rental. This guy has a lot of reviews of “mouseguns”—small and very small pistols—as well as ballistics tests for the bullets that come out of them.

All that said, I am not a fan of using a .22 for self-defense, unless it’s your only option. Further, I do not find most .22 pistols to be sufficiently reliable for self-defense. Moving up in power, I’ve read interesting things about .327 Federal Magnum, but have not shot any, nor have I seen a lot of places that stock ammo for it. .380 ACP is usually easy to find, if less powerful than I’d like for a handgun—.380 will either expand like 9mm or it’ll penetrate adequately (12 inches in gelatin, per the FBI), but it usually won’t do both. 9mmx19 (9mm Luger, Parabellum, etc…) will. No idea if 9mm Makarov (9mmx18) will.

I’ve really liked the SiG P238 and its bigger brother, the P938. Either are smaller than the subcompact 9mm Glock 26, both are accurate, and the P238 recoils very little for me. Cons are that they’re kinda pricey and they’re single-action only, like a 1911. Not impossible to learn, but it’ll take longer to make flicking off the safety an unconscious movement. Striker-fired pistols, like Glocks, Smith M&Ps;/Shields and what I have, a Kahr, are much easier: just pull the trigger.

The Kahr P380 I carry is extremely tiny and, within a Remora holster, is easily carryable in a front pants pocket where it looks to everyone like you’re carrying a phablet. Mine isn’t the most reliable—despite my best efforts at fluffing and buffing—but it’s infinitely preferable to not having a gun. And it’s so convenient to carry, as opposed to the Glock 30/MTAC combo I also have, that you find yourself doing it all the time. Remora also makes attachments for that holster to be used as either a thigh or ankle holster, Riven. See Faila (Failla?) Photography’s holster vids on youtube.

Kahr’s various 9mms are only a tad bigger, and depending on the level you choose, not terribly expensive. I think list for the CW line is only something like $350-400. Other people like S&W’s Shield or Ruger’s LCP/LCR. If I were made of money, I’d love either a vintage HK P7 or a modern Boberg: both are north of a K right now.

I understand your plight of body conforming clothes. I’d say your biggest concern is definitely going to be width, since that’s the case.

I consider myself very much a beginner for conceal carry ideals. That said, I’d look into an M&P Shield or S&W Bodyguard. They both fit comfortably in my small hands, but a gentleman might have some issues with the bodyguard, being the smaller of the two.

Any steel 9mm, a K frame S&W revolver with .38 special ammo or some .380 semi autos. Stay away from rimfire guns like both the .22lr and .22 magnum because rimfire ammo has a tendency of occasional random misfires even with premium ammo. The other reason is although they can be lethal they don’t have much in the way of immediate stopping power, the combination of a light bullet and slowish speed leaves quite a bit to be desired when it comes to kinetic energy.

Rhode Island is in the wrong column. The only thing “shall-issue” about it is that local police have the *option* of issuing permits, and must do so on a shall-issue basis *if* they do. Most don’t, referring applicants instead to the AG, who issues on a may (and, typical of left-liberal states, typically won’t) issue basis.

I was too late to comment on the earlier thread about the state of Illinois being a deadbeat tenant…but… when I was doing some book keeping for a small home heating oil business. the worst and I mean WORST deadbeats were government agencies and churches. We actually had to file in small claims to get a catholic church to pay their bill.

When I was working at McDonalds back in the day, a nun ordered her food and then got really pissed about the sales tax. I had to get a manager to do some mojo to take it off her bill. I knew that churches aren’t subject to income tax, but nuns not having to pay sales tax? That was a new one.

Tulpa was always an asshole, but I seem to remember that he used to make arguments instead of just hurling abuse. Must have changed his prescription. Or maybe he still thinks he is educating us by exposing us to different points of view.

Making a check of $48500/month with online working,, you make money $81/hour from laptop in free time.My neighbour’s sister has been averaging $15750/months now and she works about 20 hours a week. i make $13900 last month, it is realy easy and trustful , ================= ?W?W?W.W?O?R?K?4?H?O?U?R.C?O?M?

this chart is inaccurate when you take into consideration practical realities. From what I understand, it’s still illegal in Chicago to own a gun. The city council or whatever keeps fighting SCOTUS pro-2nd rulings, and trying to weasel out of them. And it’s still pointless if you can’t carry, too.